Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 MARCH 2018

Patenting Antibodies: Obviousness Considerations

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is not patentable if the "differences between the claimed invention and prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious" to a person of ordinary skill...

United StatesIntellectual Property
Li Feng
Li Feng
Author LinkedIn connections

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is not patentable if the "differences between the claimed invention and prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.  The U.S. Supreme Court set forth half a century ago a four-prong test to determine obviousness: (i) the scope and content of prior art, (ii) differences between claimed subject matter and prior art, (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (iv) objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial success, unexpected results, and skepticism.  Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

Updates On Export Controls Impacting AI & Advanced Computing

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security issued guidance on May 31, 2026, clarifying licensing requirements for advanced computing items and AI technologies. The guidance maintains export restrictions for entities in certain countries while providing limited relief for data center operators, though questions remain about future regulatory direction. Companies must now strengthen their compliance programs and supply-chain due diligence as BIS continues to prioritize national security
GlobalInternational Law
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court

On May 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California held that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code § 638.51 does not apply to software on commercial websites. Plaintiff Brian Blaker sued Defendant NetScout, Inc., alleging the Defendant had violated § 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by implementing a software development kit (SDK) on its website.
United StatesPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Privacy Law Mid-Year Update: Key EU And UK Data Protection Decisions

Recent EU and UK court decisions have reshaped the landscape of data protection compliance, clarifying critical boundaries around consent, data subject rights, cybersecurity obligations, and children's privacy. These rulings demonstrate that organizations must move beyond formal compliance to embed proportionality, accountability, and risk-based decision-making into their data processing activities, even when disclosures are legally required or supported by valid legal bases.
GlobalPrivacy
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

Recent patent litigation orders from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reveal critical claim construction disputes and discovery rulings that shape the boundaries of patent enforcement. How do courts balance claim definiteness requirements with the practical realities of patent scope, and what standards govern third-party discovery in indirect infringement cases?
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: June 2026

A Massachusetts district court grants a joint motion to stay proceedings while the parties conduct venue discovery and brief a motion to dismiss or transfer in a patent infringement case between Advanced Surgical Concepts Limited and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The order establishes specific parameters for discovery scope and briefing schedule before other case deadlines resume.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Finding A Lack Of Bona Fide Use, TTAB Affirms Cancellation Of Everwise Credit Union Registration Under The Lanham Act’s Reexamination Procedure

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's precedential decision in In re Everwise Credit Union examines whether a credit union's use of its mark constituted bona fide commercial use or merely token use designed to reserve trademark rights. The case centers on whether Everwise Credit Union had actually used its mark in commerce by the deadline to file its Statement of Use, or whether the mark's appearance on its website was simply a placeholder for a future rebrand that occurred two months later.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

Staying True To The Specification: Federal Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Based On Unsupported Claim Constructions

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP